3. Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): If she will make a statement on the findings of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

Tony Lloyd: May I endorse my right hon. Friend's remark that the IPCC produces the most authoritative reports? However, its reports have not been uniformly accepted throughout the world, even though the science that they contain is as good as it can get. We surmise from the leaks of the draft of the report that my right hon. Friend will have in April that it will be even more dire in its predictions than previous reports, because it will say that there is no upper limit to temperature increases owing to carbon dioxide increases. Does the Minister believe that it will galvanise the whole of the international community, including the United States and countries that opted out of Kyoto, to do something serious about climate change?

Michael Jack: Does the Secretary of State agree that an important contribution to addressing the findings of the IPCC would be to reduced greenhouse gas emissions from our power stations by the use of biomass? In that context, could the Secretary of State explain to the House why the value of the renewables obligation certificates now makes it less attractive to use biomass as a co-firing fuel medium in power stations at the very time when research shows that as a biofuel it gives the best return per hectare in carbon dioxide reductions?

Margaret Beckett: Yes, I did receive such a letter and I welcomed it, as I have indicated before, because it suggested that all the parties represented in the House accept the science and the targets that the Government have set, which is very much an important step forward. There are two other things, however. I shall not start ringing bells until I can see that we are in greater agreement about what we should actually do, because there has been a pattern whereby all the concrete actions that the Government have proposed have been one by one opposed by other parties in the House. We have not yet had an opportunity to test whether that has changed. It is a slightly different matter for a Government to engage in dialogue about future policy development than it is for other parties, although I very much hope that their policy decisions are fruitful, and greatly welcome the moves that have been made so far.

Ben Bradshaw: Local authority emergency planning departments are intricately involved in all the discussions and preparations across Government, involving not just our Department but the Department of Health, and local authorities will be involved in the forthcoming contingency exercise. They should be well aware of their roles; the information is available and is given to them, but if the hon. Gentleman has evidence that they are not quite sure what they should do in the event of an outbreak he should let me know, because there is no excuse for that.

Nicholas Winterton: While I much appreciate the limitations of vaccination, particularly in the short term, what education have we received from countries where vaccination has been practised widely? I refer particularly to countries in Asia where vaccination is taking place in large numbers. Have we anything to learn? Will the Minister put some information in the public domain so that the public may be reassured?

James Paice: I am afraid that there is much confusion in the country. Only last week the Prime Minister said that vaccination is not effective in stopping the spread of the disease, but experience in Hong Kong—a properly validated scientific exercise—has shown that vaccinated birds do not transmit the disease. It appears that we have a Government policy of no vaccination, yet the Government have an imminent delivery of Nobilis vaccine for use in zoos. At the same time there is increasing doubt about whether other outdoor birds could be housed. We do not want a repeat of what happened during the foot and mouth outbreak, when halfway through the disaster the Government began to consider vaccination. Will the Minister now guarantee that the Government's present policy will not change, or must the uncertainty continue?

Si�n Simon: I thank the Minister for that answer. Birmingham city council is proving very good at levying fines under the new Act, and proving very bad at chasing up the collection of the fines. Given the obvious limited deterrent effect of fines that do not have to be paid, and notwithstanding the notable incompetence and dithering of the Tory-led and Liberal-assisted leadership of Birmingham city council, can my hon. Friend suggest any ways in which councils such as Birmingham might put a bit of substance behind their sound and fury and collect fines rather more effectively than purely vigorously?

Bill Wiggin: The European Food Safety Authority's recent report on foot and mouth disease found that between 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. of travellers bring into the EU about 5 kg of animal products from foot and mouth disease-infected areas. The promised meat disposal bins and extra staff do not seem to have materialised. There have been only eight prosecutions, of which one was custodial, since the disease was in Britain. As 97 per cent. of the foot and mouth disease risk is in passenger baggage, why have we only 10 meat detector sniffer dogs to cover the whole UK? Between 2,800 and 17,500 tonnes of illegal meat is imported annually into the EU. How hard is it to train more dogs to sniff out that much meat?

Anne McIntosh: What representations she has received on the payment of single farm payments in north Yorkshire.

Jim Knight: The Rural Payments Agency responds to all correspondence relating to the single payment scheme. As the scheme is not administered on a regional basis, it does not hold records on representations specific to north Yorkshire.

Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware that not a penny piece has been paid to any north Yorkshire farmer although the Minister promised that the bulk96 per cent.would be paid before the end of March? Indeed, that figure has now been reduced to a mere 50 per cent. Is he further aware that Scottish and Welsh farmers have been paid in full, with the perverse and distorting effect that they are outbidding north Yorkshire farmers for the cattle sold in our own marts?

John Grogan: Notwithstanding that answer, does my hon. Friend accept that there is real concern among farmers in north Yorkshire and the rural community about the performance of the Rural Payments Agency? Will he encourage it to be as transparent as possible in providing information on how many validations have been made and to treat sympathetically those farmers who face delays in payment because it has been unable to finalise its digital maps?

Nigel Dodds: What discussions she has had with devolved administrations on protecting the UK against an outbreak of avian influenza.

Martin Linton: I hope that my hon. Friend will publish the figures by constituency because it is important for Members of Parliament to know how much is being disbursed in their areas. There is no reason why, having done that, he should not go on to include addresses and postcodes, too. After all, 1.6 billion is currently paid into the bank accounts of farmers and growers, apart from those in north Yorkshire apparently, and I see no reason why people who receive public money should not accept

Beverley Hughes: As I told the hon. Gentleman, a compulsory check at the highest level will be made on the people administering the information-sharing index, but we have yet to finalise which groups of people are affected and which level of check will be imposed on those working in local authorities. That is an issue to which we will return during proceedings on the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill.
	Hon. Members may be reassured to learn that current arrangements involve the transfer of individual child information from providers to local authorities. In the new clause we are seeking to standardise that practice. A survey that we conducted in December among a large number of local authorities demonstrated that that the majority already collect information about early years settings on an individual child basis. The Department for Education and Skills requires that information to be sent to it in an aggregated form.
	Many local authorities welcome the proposal to mirror the way in which school data is provided so that individual child information can be passed on to the Department, becauseto answer the hon. Gentleman's questionthat will reduce their workload and make their task much simpler. I accept that that does not take into account concerns about the kind of information collected, but we envisage that the amount of that information will be limited. It could include identifying information on children such as gender and ethnicity, whether they receive special educational needs provision, and, of course, the number of hours that they spend in the setting, including the number of funded hours. That is essential because, as I said at the beginning of our debate, some providers lose out if parents take up the free nursery education offer with a number of different providers. Because the information that the Department receives is aggregated, we cannot ensure that funding flows to the providers who are caring for the child for a certain number of hours a week. Providers are particularly concerned about that, as hon. Members will appreciate.

'(1) Section (Provision of information about young children: England) has effect with the modifications specified in subsections (2) and (3) until section 7 comes into force.
	(2) In subsection (1)
	(a) after requiring insert a person who provides funded nursery education, and
	(b) omit paragraphs (a) and (b).
	(3) In subsection (9)
	(a) for the definition of early years provision substitute
	funded nursery education means nursery education, within the meaning of Part 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31), which is provided by any person
	(a) under arrangements made with that person by a local education authority in England in pursuance of the duty imposed on the authority by section 118 of that Act (duty of LEA to secure sufficient nursery education), and
	(b) in consideration of financial assistance provided by the authority under those arrangements,
	other than such education provided by a school for its pupils;,
	(b) for the definition of individual child information substitute
	individual child information means information relating to and identifying individual children for whom funded nursery education is being or has been provided, whether obtained under subsection (1) or otherwise;, and
	(c) in the definition of information collator for early years provision substitute funded nursery education.'. [Beverley Hughes.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	No. 49, in page 7, line 2, clause 12, at end insert
	';
	(d) child protection arrangements'.
	Government amendments Nos. 19 to 25.
	Government amendments Nos. 28 and 29.
	Before we discuss this group of amendments, I must tell the House that an error was made in printing Government new clause 5. A corrected version has been placed in the Vote Office, which I understand has been available to Members. I am given an assurance that the corrections are not of any great import.

Tim Loughton: We could create even more of an imbalance between the Front Bench and the Back Benches by drafting in some of our hon. Friends from the shadow Wales team, who take child protection seriously. We have discussed the matter with them and our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly, because the issue of child protection extends beyond Offa's dyke.
	Government new clause 5 amends schedule 9A to the Children Act 1989. It is frustrating when Acts are amended by subsequent legislation and when we are provided only with the original legislation. My copy of the Children Act 1989 provided by the Table Office does not included schedule 9A, which was added later. As a general point, it would be useful if the Table Office were to keep supplies of updated legislation, because I have been unable to obtain the exact wording of schedule 9A. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to provide hon. Members with the original wording.
	On amendments Nos. 19 and 20, we are waiting for the final details on the arrangements for safeguarding children, and it would be interesting to know when they will be published. In the past few days, the Government have published the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, and a lot of detail is required on barring, vetting and appeal mechanisms, so we are being asked to accept the amendments on trust.
	Government amendment No. 22 states that someone can be disqualified from registration
	on grounds relating to his health.
	The Minister has provided a couple of examplesof people suffering from alcohol or substance misuse. If people have ongoing medical conditions that mean that they may not be up to the job, they will be disqualified, presumably on a temporary basis, until they arehopefullytreated successfully. What about other conditions? What about people who have HIV? What about people who are suffering from minor mental health conditions? Can the legislation be used to exclude or disqualify people from working in child care if they are suffering from one of those two conditions, which may not be deemed by many people as sufficiently serious or germane to the subject to merit their being disqualified completely from working with children? That is particularly true of people who have minor mental health problems or who have their HIV condition under control and who take all precautions on contamination. I fear that those conditions could be used to discriminate against people who are already stigmatised because they are suffering from a mental illness or have an HIV condition. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm that the clause could not be used for the purposes for which I am sure she does not intend it to be used.
	Government amendment No. 24 says that disqualification can happen if
	he has been given a caution in respect of an offence of a prescribed kind.
	Government amendment No. 25 refers to section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That part of the Act, which gives the definitions of cautions and reprimands, can catch a lot of people. The definitions of when it is appropriate to give reprimands or warnings include when
	an offence is not so serious as to require a charge to be brought.
	Will the Minister indicate the sorts of warnings or reprimands that she thinks were not sufficiently serious to merit a full charge under that Act, but are deemed sufficiently serious that those people should not then come into child care contact with children? In effect, it is possible that a teenager who in a moment of high spirits did something that was not serious enough for them to be charged and given a criminal record, but to which they admitted guilt by accepting a reprimand or a warning, could find when they tried to embark on a career in child care or some other form of contact with children, that they are exempted. It seems draconian to exempt a whole group of people who are not on the face of it a danger to children as most of us might term it.
	There is another issue that I hope that the Minister will deal with when we come to discuss the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, if she is handling it. We need to be able to distinguish between the severity of offences. If a 17-year-old boy or girl has sexual relations with a 15-year-old boy or girl minor, that is against the law. When set against a convicted paedophile who downloads child pornographic images on the internet and engages in molestation of children, I think that most of us would agree that those two offences are on an altogether different scale. There should be some balance in the Bill. Otherwise, people who end up accepting a reprimand or a warning under that wide-ranging section of the Crime and Disorder Act, on the basis that that was the most sensible thing for them to do at the time so that they could move on, may find that it has undermined their entire potential career in the child care work force.
	I heard about an example of that recently. A mother had intervened to stop her son being beaten up by a school colleague who was something of a bully. Without going into the detail of the whole episode, it ended up with her being taken to the police station and being advised to accept a caution for her supposed aggression in separating those children. Given her telling of the story, with other witnesses corroborating it, I have no doubt that what she did was anything more than trying to drag a bully off her son. She thought nothing of it and took the caution. A few years later she applied for a job to work with children in the local youth service. The caution came up and, lo and behold, counted against her so that she could not get the job. That is a high price to pay for somebody who was protecting her son.
	It is right to seek to disqualify people who are a serious threat to children from working with children, because that needs to be tightened up. Conservative Members have been critical of the loopholes and laxness in the system that have allowed serious sex offenders to carry on teaching, in particular, and working in the health service. That is why we will, at the appropriate time, welcome many of the measures in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. However, we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I ask the Minister to give us some assurances on the subject.
	Government amendment No. 28 is a technical amendment on which we have no comment. Government amendment No. 29 amends the long title of the Bill. It is usually my job to try to change the long titles of Bills that are to do with children. I applaud the Minister for following my example, as many of them are a disaster.
	I turn to amendment No. 49, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Our amendment gives a slightly different angle on the whole subject of protecting children. It would add the words, child protection arrangements, to clause 12, which deals with the duty to provide information, advice and assistance. It would be appropriate, particularly given the furore in recent months over sex offenders working in environments where they will be involved with children, to do everything that we can to reassure parents that local authorities and child care providers have gone that extra mile to ensure that their children can go to the nursery with every reasonable measure having been taken to ensure that the people with whom they will come into contact have been properly vetted.
	It would enhance the thrust of clause 12 if an additional piece of information were provided to parents and prospective parents to give an indication of what child protection arrangements have been established by the local authority and are demanded of child care providers, and whether they are being put in place, adhered to, maintained and updated where appropriate by those child care providers. That would be a sensible enhancement of the Bill to give parents a degree of assurance that they are giving their children into the charge of people in whom they can have the greatest confidence, so that they can be sure that such people are there in the interests of the children, not because they harbour some other, less desirable intentions towards those children.
	I hope that the amendment is constructive. If the Minister is unable to incorporate it into the Bill now, I hope that it might be considered later, or at least put into regulations for local authorities to follow so that this important issue is taken into account.

Annette Brooke: I, too, was generally pleased with the amendments. Again, there were no accompanying notes. I picked up the word health and I was not sure what it covered, but I believe that the same expression is used in the Protection of Children Act 1999POCAlist. There may be additional information that I have not had time to find. It would therefore have been helpful to have the information. I have asked a series of parliamentary questions about checks on child care and I imagine that the written statement, which I have not seen, will add to the information that I have gleaned.
	I, too, am pleased that the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill will apply to child care and that the list or listshowever it ultimately works outwill have to be checked. However, it prompts the question of why criminal record checks are not required in unregulated settings, such as the crche under two hours, which I keep mentioning. I had hoped that amendment No. 49 would pick up that point, but its approach is from a slightly different angle. I am still worried that parents do not know that criminal record checks are not carried out on those in unregulated settings. However, I agree that it is helpful to know that the lists will have to be checked before anybody can work with young people.
	I am pleased with the safeguarding amendmentsNos. 19, 20 and 21. They tie in with other parts of the Bill. However, in Committee, we discussed at great length whether the measure should include the word may or must. The amendments, which refer to
	the arrangements for safeguarding the children concerned
	apply to subsections of clauses that state:
	The regulations may provide
	for the following matters. On safeguarding, the word should be must, as we argued in Committee. The safeguarding amendments make it even more important to revisit the may and must argument, which I will not discuss at great length because we spent much time on it in Committee. However, it is worth raising it again because we have changed the measure and our awareness is heightened about the necessity of safeguarding and protecting. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to reconsider the matter.

Maria Eagle: We can make that clear. The provisions apply only to those in an education setting who end up on List 99. They are not intended to be any wider.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a constituency case to show the potential dangers of barring on the basis of cautions. He made legitimate points about the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, the way in which we intend to make the new barring and vetting process work and the impact that it will have. He gave the example of a mother who intervened to save a child from being pushed around and ended up with soft information on a Criminal Records Bureau record that caused her problems in working in child care. Those issues are central to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill and establishing the new barring and vetting scheme. We have given the matter considerable thought. We do not intend to provide that any caution would lead to being barred from the children's work force. We would not have such a work force, which could deal with all the jobs and roles in it, if we cast the net too wide. Obviously, it is important to cast it in the appropriate place, however, and that is certainly our intention. It would be our intention to bar on the basis of cautions only for serious sexual or violent offences. We would not want to see people being barred from the child care work force if they had, perhaps sensibly, received a caution for a very minor matter that would not make them a risk to children.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right to draw the comparison, which is sometimes age-related, between circumstances that might relate to a similar offence. He used the example of a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old having a relationship, and compared it to the case of a paedophile downloading child porn then wanting to work in the child care work force. Common sense would suggest to most hon. Members that there is a huge difference between those examples.
	When the hon. Gentleman sees the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill in all its glory, he will understand that we are dealing with precisely where the lines should be drawn in what are sometimes grey areas. However, I do not think, from what he says, that he disagrees too strongly with where we have tried to draw the line. The provisions that we are putting into this Bill try to make consistent the place at which the bar will fall between the education work force and the child care work force. We are trying to tidy up and make consistent the places where the line is drawn in that regard.
	I regret that we cannot give the hon. Gentleman the full details of all the relevant measures, but some of them are in another piece of legislation, which we shall consider in the not too distant future. I can assure him, however, that we have in mind the issues that he has raised in regard to proportionality. There will also be provision for appeals and for people to make representations in appropriate cases. It is perhaps regrettable that those measures are in a Bill that has yet to come before the House. I am asking hon. Members to take on trust some of those issues in relation to the Childcare Bill. I can assure them, however, that its provisions will be consistent with those of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill in regard to the new barring and vetting scheme, which the House will have plenty of opportunity to consider in great detail in the not-too-distant future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 8BEST VALUE PROVISION OF CHILDCARE
	'Any local authority operating a best value regime, in accordance with Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999 (c. 27), must act in a fair and transparent way in delivering best value obligations with regard to childcare provision, having due regard to any relevant statutory code of practice.'.
	Amendment No. 60, in page 4, line 10, clause 6, after 'sufficient', insert
	', and is likely to remain sufficient,'.
	Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 15, at end insert
	', or
	(c) to receive appropriate assistance with children with disabilities or other special needs.'.
	Amendment No. 13, in page 4, line 15, at end insert
	'or
	(c) to sustain caring responsibilities.'.
	Amendment No. 35, in page 4, line 15, at end insert
	'(1A) In assessing the requirements referred to in subsection (1) a local authority should have regard to any disabilities of the parents themselves, as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50).'.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 24, at end insert
	', and
	(c) must consider the quality of local childcare provision with reference to the Ofsted inspection process.'.
	Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 24, clause 8, at end insert
	'(3A) A local authority must establish a complaints procedure for existing or potential childcare providers who have been disadvantaged by local authorities who choose to provide childcare and related services themselves.'.
	Amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 26, at end insert
	'(4A) Where childcare is provided by the governing body of a maintained school it must be both fully co-ordinated with other local provision and with the local Children and Young People's Plan, published under section 17 of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31).'.
	Amendment No. 32, in page 5, line 34, clause 9, leave out 'other than' and insert 'including'.
	Amendment No. 38, in page 6, line 13, clause 11, at end insert
	'(1A) Assessments of sufficiency under subsection (1) must have regard to any Local Area Agreement relating to the local authority.'.
	Amendment No. 59, in page 6, line 28, leave out paragraph (a) and insert
	'(a) consult
	(i) parents and prospective parents in their area,
	(ii) early years providers in their area, including those in private and voluntary sectors,
	(iii) other persons engaged in activities which may improve the well-being of young children in their area, and
	(iv) young children in their area.'.
	Amendment No. 39, in page 12, line 33, clause 26, at end insert
	', having regard to the Local Area Agreement process'.

Paul Goodman: As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has pointed out, three months have passed since Second Reading, which was the last opportunity that I had to speak on the Bill, as I did not serve on the Committee. However, today, along with my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller), I have been placed on the Front Bench to speak on child care issues. It is a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), whom I last saw when we discussed the Disability Discrimination Bill, although at that time, I did not have the chance to have the kind of detailed exchanges with her in Committee and on Report that we might be about to have now.
	The new clauses and amendments are about sufficiency, but they are also, no less importantly, about sustainability, contestability and fairness in child care provision. These matters were explored to some degree in the Committee proceedings that I have read, but there is yet more action to be taken on them. The Government are formally signed up to work in partnership with PVIprivate, voluntary and independentproviders, and they are very proud of that. When the Minister for Children and Families replied to the Second Reading debate, she gave the House statistics on the child care provision that is made by the private and voluntary sector. She will be aware, however, as the issue was raised in Committee, that some PVI providers and others are concerned that the playing field is not as level as it might be, and that the mixed economy in child care is, to some extent, under threat.
	In some ways, local authorities have an advantage over PVI providers. My hon. Friends gave some examples of that in Committeeincluding that in regard to capital spendingand I shall not repeat them here. However, when these matters were raised in Committee, the Minister for Children and Families responded to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) about a National Day Nurseries Association survey by saying
	for his information, the closure rate of all child care businesses, as recorded by Ofsted, has fallen recently . . . Ofsted's statistics suggest that, since the publication of the 10-year strategy, closure rates for these small businesses have fallen dramatically.[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 December 2005; c. 12021]
	Before I turn to the new clauses and amendments dealing with contestability and fairness, I must tell the Minister that the figures that she gave us do not square with information in written answers that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and I have recently received. According to calculations made by my hon. Friend, some 200,000 places closed in 200405, up from 59,500 the previous year. That seems to be an extraordinary increase. I tabled a written question on this matter recently and, according to the answer that I received this week, the latest figures reveal that, in the six months to last September, roughly 114,000 places opened, but some 73,000 closed. In other words, the closure rate appears to be increasing. We used to say that, for every two places that opened, one would close. According to the latest figureswhich might not be sustained; we shall have to seeit now appears that, for every five places that open, roughly three are closing.
	In short, there is a suspicion that the overall growth in the child care marketwhich we have certainly seen; there is no doubt about thatcould be unsustainable, and that we might be entering a dangerous process of growth and contraction. First comes the growth in the number of places; second comes the closure among the PVI providers as local authority-favoured providers exploit the unevenness of the playing field to expand places; finally, there could be a contraction in local authority places as the flow of Government money into child care places continues to increase but slows down.
	If that were to happen, such an outcome would obviously be immensely destabilising for parents, who want certainty, and for children, who need stability. The new clauses and amendments aim to provide more stability and certainty by increasing contestability. They would put into effect some of the recommendations from the excellent CBI report entitled Children First, which I am sure the Ministers have read.
	New clause 6 proposes that an obligation be placed on the Secretary of State, and written into the Bill, to publish a code of practice by the beginning of next year that would ensure that local authorities operating a best practice regimein practice, that is nearly all of themact in a fair and transparent way with regard to child care. New clause 8 underpins new clause 6 by directly placing a duty on local authorities to act in such a fair and transparent manner.
	Amendment No. 60 would help to write sustainability into the Bill. As drafted, the Bill places a duty on English local authoritiesthe Liberal Democrats need not worry; I am going to deal with Wales in a minuteto
	secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the provision of childcare (whether or not by them) is sufficient to meet the requirements of parents in their area.
	I understand that there was some dispute in Committee about the words
	so far as is reasonably practicable.
	Inserting the words
	and is likely to remain sufficient
	would place a duty on local authorities to ensure that that sufficiency is sustainable. It is evident from the calculations of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, and from the written answers that we have both received, that there is at the very least a question mark over that sustainability.
	Clause 6(1) already obliges local authorities to ensure that
	the provision of childcare . . . is sufficient to meet the requirements of parents . . . who require childcare
	so that they can take up work, education or training, which is admirable. Amendment No. 5 adds a new category of parents who require child care to help them
	to receive appropriate assistance with children with disabilities or other special needs.
	I am sure that we have all encountered that group of parents and children in our constituencies. I recently visited a club in my constituency that provides care for children with disabilities and special needs on Saturdays, in order to give parents respite that is desperately needed. The Minister nods: she knows a great deal about these matters from her previous experience as Minister for disabled people.
	Amendment No. 35 obliges local authorities to
	have regard to any disabilities of the parents themselves.
	Access to child care may be crucially affected if parents have difficulty gaining access to transport. Amendment No. 7 protects the position of
	existing or potential childcare providers who have been disadvantaged by local authorities who . . . provide childcare and related services themselves
	by placing on them an obligation to establish a complaints procedure. Amendment No. 38 proposes use of the local area agreement process, whereby central Government pay bonuses to local authorities that enter into agreed action, to include the creation of a diverse range of providers of children's services or a sustainable local market for child care in England. Amendment No. 39 makes the same provision for Wales.
	I have a feeling, based on my experience of previous Bills, that for one reason or another the Government may not accept all the amendments. The Minister may tell us the reason. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) accuses me of pessimism, but it is simply the triumph of experience over hope.
	If the Minister has difficulties with our amendments, we shall be keen to hear how the Government will deal with the issues of contestability and transparency. It is clear from the latest child care statistics, which show an increase in the rate of closures, that something very curious is happening in the child care market. Either it is simply a problem of oversupply, oras the CBI has complained, along with others who aired their complaints in CommitteeGovernment provision is driving some PVI providers out of the market. The question is, as the flow of money slows, what will happen to places that have disappeared and may not be able to return to the market? I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Annette Brooke: I have no great disagreement with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). I certainly share his concerns about sustainability. We should, however, also be mindful of the problem of affordability. I am sure that there is a desire for child care, but it may not translate itself into demand for reasons connected with funding. That is an enormous problem for the Government. Large sums are needed to make child care affordable, and I cannot offer an easy solution.
	I want to concentrate on amendments Nos. 5, 13 and 35, all of which deal with the same issue. The Bill does not cover the provision of child care when parents are workless. In Committee, we pointed out that parents might be workless because they were caring, or because they had disabilities themselves. In such circumstances, access to child care might be even more important. I tabled an amendment suggesting that a local authority may rather than must have regard to providing child care for workless parents. We could be storing up greater costs in the long run by not providing child care, because of the prioritisation of a hard-pressed local authority, when it is deeply needed by both parents and children.
	I remember saying that two deaf parents might have hearing children. The children would really need child care, and the ability to socialise more generally. I am still concerned that the Bill does not even use the word may to indicate that in some circumstances local authorities throughout the countrynot just the best-funded authoritiesmay need to provide child care.
	It could be said that amendment No. 10 is slightly in disguise. Let me explain. I spent a good deal of time in Committee, and indeed on Second Reading, speaking about quality, because I think that it is crucial. However, humbled and crushed into the ground by all the Ministers' answers, I tabled this minimalist amendment. I listened carefully to Ministers who kept telling me that I need not worry about local authorities' monitoring quality, because there were Ofsted inspections. I therefore suggested the additional instruction that local authorities
	must consider the quality of local child care provision with reference to the Ofsted inspection process.
	I merely suggest that local authorities should look at Ofsted reports across the board. I hope the Minister will accept that modest, basic requirement in the spirit in which it is proposed by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). We recognised that we must define what we meant by quality; defining a baseline in Ofsted terms could do the job.
	In February the Government issued A Code of Practice on the Provision of Free Nursery Education Places for Three-and Four-Year-Olds. Its emphasis on quality is welcome. It states
	Local authorities may also require other providers of nursery education to participate in a quality assurance scheme.
	In Committee, I pressed the Minister for answers on the Investors in Children kitemark scheme. Although the answers that I received were reassuring, at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for children it was clear that early-years providers were again concerned about the future of Investors in Children. It would be helpful if the Minister could update us on the progress of consultation, and tell us whether there is a commitment to maintaining a generally recognised kitemark, or something similar, for quality assurance.
	I stress that such monitoring by Ofsted would be minimalist. The problem would be that monitoring might happen only once every three years. However, Ofsted reports can bring strands together. For example, one report observed that there was a high proportion of child care settings in which not all staff were in place at the time of their opening. There is a need for local authorities to keep an eye on such nurseries.
	Amendment No. 31, which we tabled, picks up on the idea that we must have a level playing field. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) said that there is a worry that it does not exist. The amendment is fairly modest. I favour neither state nor private provision. I have no agenda on that because I come from an authority that relies on the private and voluntary sector for the bulk of its provision, which is good. However, there are reports from all over the country that some of our important private providers are not satisfied that there is a level playing field, so it is critical that that problem is taken on board.
	I tabled amendment No. 59 so that we could return to a matter on which we touched in Committee: consultation with all partners and participants, including young children. I have tabled the amendment to a different clause than I did in Committee because the Minister explained to me that it would not be appropriate for young children to participate in making overall strategy. Amendment No. 59 is a probing amendment that tries to encapsulate the importance of listening to all children. Would it not be groundbreaking to include in the Bill a reference to listening to young children? The Government have funded exciting work on listening to young children, so why not have some recognition of that in the Bill? I think that the amendment could be incorporated in clause 11, but I wait to hear otherwise.

Beverley Hughes: Certainly, but there was an implication that the Ofsted data that I quoted was incorrect. The data go right across the board and show that there is much more stability in the sector as whole, although there are changes in the private sector market, as there are in any private sector market.

Paul Goodman: The Minister said a moment ago that she had not given us much comfort. I agree, and I shall explain why by returning to the figures. The key word that she used was churn and she said that there is a churning of places. She also said that matters had improved since December 2004. From 200304 to 200405, according to the parliamentary answer that the Minister kindly provided, 16,000 new places were provided, but some 60,000 were closed. We find it hard to see how that can be a churn. Either there is over-supply or there is not a level playing field in the way that the CBI and the National Daycare Nurseries Association have suggested. It must be one or the other.
	In her reply, the Minister essentially said that these amendments are a duplication. That was a lawyer's answer. Saying something is a lawyer's answer is not necessarily an uncomplimentary remark; after all, my party was led by a lawyer until recently, and the right hon. Lady's party still is. I was not for a moment claiming that the right hon. Lady is a lawyer, simply that her answer was a good lawyer's answer, and I am sure that she was assisted by her Department in that. However, it seems to us that although the Bill may contain the measures necessary to ensure that a level playing field is established, it is hard to see them. We do not intended to press these amendments to the vote, but our colleagues in another place will require more reassurance about how the Minister's Department is going to provide a level playing field once the Bill comes Into effect. At the moment, there is a very strong suggestion that the playing field is not level.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Maria Miller: I was due to serve on the Committee on this Bill, but because of a double booking with Standing Committee on the Equality Bill, I was unable to do so. Equality won out, which is as it should be. I eventually got here, and the hand of fate means that I am involved at the end of the day. I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) earlier about the cross-departmental child care team on the Opposition Benches. My hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) are part of the official Opposition's strong child care team, and I am pleased to be part of it too.
	In Committee there was vigorous debate, particularly on issues that I shall cover in this group of amendments. It is a diverse groupsomething of a shopping listbut these are important amendments and are worthy of further consideration. This group focuses on the duties of local authorities to ensure the well-being of children and I shall subdivide it further so that the debate makes sense.
	I shall first look at amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which relate to clause 1, about improving the well-being of children. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State stressed the idea of children having the best start in life, and the Opposition wholeheartedly endorse that. We believe that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would instil that ideal more into the Bill. Our concern is that the reduction of inequalitiesthe wording currently in the Billcould be interpreted in a number of ways and lacks the clarity that legislation should provide. Clarity of direction is vital. We believe that the Bill needs to focus on raising standardsan objective that we all share. We have heard today that the Government have failed to meet their target for reducing child poverty, and we share their obvious concern about that. Many hundreds of thousands of children who should have been out of poverty remain in it.
	We have to focus on what we can do to close the gap between rich and poor, because it must be addressed in terms not merely of targets, which can sometimes create perverse outcomes, but of raising standards for all, especially the quality of experience for the most disadvantaged groups. We believe that the Bill should, and will, set the tone and ethos for what we want from child care. The Bill is important because every child deserves the opportunity to maximise his or her potential.
	In Committee, some philosophical differences were expressed about the reduction of inequalities versus improvement in the quality of outcomes. I hope that we can agree that we should continue to work on those points, but we may be closer together than the Committee debate suggested. I refer to an interview given by the Prime Minister on Newsnight in 2001, when he clearly stated that the Government's objective was to level things up. He said:
	Surely the important thing is to level up those people that don't have opportunity in our society.
	We wholeheartedly endorse that view, which our amendments would make much clearer in the Bill. Our philosophy is simple: to maximise the potential of children so that no child is held back or left behind. The amendments would help to make that clearer to the people who implement the legislation.
	It will be useful to deal with amendments Nos. 34, 43 and 56 together. They all refer to improving children's well-being, which relates to the Government's objective of ensuring that we help the people who need it most, which the Secretary of State stressed on Second Reading. The objective of the amendments is to focus the Bill on doing exactly that. As child poverty remains of great concern, I hope that the Government find the amendments useful in ensuring that our objectives in the legislation are clear.
	I am sure that the House agrees that we have much to learn from other experience of child care provision. The US head start programme is interesting. It puts tremendous focus on the most disadvantaged families and has resulted in significant, measurable improvements in language, social development and parental interaction with their children, in terms of reading and discipline. In the UK, Sure Start is a welcome help for the most disadvantaged, although it covers only 40 per cent. of disadvantaged children. Indeed, my constituency, which has areas of significant disadvantage, receives no such help, although I am pleased that the situation will change in the future with the establishment of children's centres.
	As the Minister of State has stressed, when I have put questions about the results of Sure Start, these are early days, but is the programme targeted enough on the most disadvantaged? In the light of the national evaluation of Sure Start, will the Minister consider whether more can be done directly to underpin and support the most disadvantaged groups, especially those important groups that the research showed were as yet unsupported by the programmelone parents, teenage mothers and workless households. We all feel that they deserve more support.
	We all want to improve the well-being of children in the broadest sense, but it is vital that support for the most disadvantaged is at the heart of our discussions. All three amendments would focus resources more actively on those most in need, which we hope will do most to help children in poverty. The proposals would not merely facilitate but maximise access to the services on offer and not merely identify but target the parents most in need, making the Bill much more active and its support more directed.
	We are concerned about the structure of the Sure Start programme, which needs some attention. It is rather loose and variable in execution, so it can be difficult to measure outcomes. Our key concern is that we are ensuring help for those who need it, and perhaps that is not ingrained in the implementation of Sure Start to date, as evidenced by the Birkbeck study, which was published in November 2005. I am, of course, aware of the supplementary pamphlets and notes that have been issued as a result of that research. I ask the Minister to comment on whether she feels that that background is sufficient to cause the change that we probably need to see in Sure Start to underpin those important groups.
	The Government clearly have continuing problems with poverty levels. We have been targeting to reduce poverty, but hundreds of thousands of children whom the Government were hoping to lift out of poverty have not been removed from it. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that an additional 1.4 billion will be needed to hit the Government's targets by 2010. Obviously that is down to the Chancellor, who must ponder and think about it. We accept on both sides of the House that work is an important way out of poverty. Indeed, that was reiterated this morning by a Minister speaking on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions during an interview. The Bill is an important way to support parents with the aim of getting back to work in mind. If we are to ensure that the proposed legislation reaches its maximum potential, there may be room to consider the amendments to ensure that we are focusing our activities in the right direction.
	Amendments Nos. 40 and 52 were tabled to offer some support and help in improving the well-being checklist. What is on the checklist will dictate the approach that the local authority takes. As we all know, what happens to us as children influences us for the rest of our lives. The way in which we assess the progress of children is of paramount importance.
	Amendment No. 40 is about the physical and emotional health of children. I am sure that we all realise that mental health is a long-term issue that develops over time. It is not static, and cannot be considered at only one point in time. We need to consider the mental health development of children, and that is a continuing process.
	As for amendment No. 52, there is the recognition that children's relationships with their parents are important in their long-term well-being. I was somewhat surprised to see that that was not recognised in the Bill, particularly after some of the debates that we have had recently on the Children and Adoption Bill, during which we all agreed on the importance of the relationship with parents. This should be a pivotal element of the well-being checklist, and I ask the Minister to consider that carefully. The amendment would lead to a constructive improvement.
	With amendment No. 36, we try to draw attention to the importance of the quality of outcomes. As part of improving the well-being of children, we are improving access. We are also improving the quality of child care on offer. We have already discussed our disappointment that so many private and voluntary nursery places have come to an end, although there has been a net gain. We see that as a positive move, but we are concerned that 200,000 places have been closed.
	We need to ensure that when, or rather if, the Bill is enacted, local authorities focus on quality, not quantity alone. We feel strongly about that, and the issue was debated thoroughly in Committee. It is worthy of being set out in the Bill, and the amendment would do that. It would put into the Bill the importance of quality and the importance of raising the quality of outcomes, which should be at the heart of the legislation.
	Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 46 have been tabled to encourage better acknowledgement of the importance of giving local authorities some room to manoeuvre in their local approach to putting child care in place in their areas. We all know that our constituencies are diverseBasingstoke is a mixture of suburban and rural communitiesand even within a single constituency and local authority area the Bill will have to deal with a great deal of diversity. The amendments would give the local authority the ability to adapt to local needs, and more autonomy, making sure that they were not just driven by centrally dictated targets but could take into account what was happening in their own communities.
	Amendment No. 55 has a specific aim, and echoes the debate about may and must in Committee. Clause 4 deals with the duty of local authorities to work with relevant partners such as the national health service in the delivery of integrated child care. Members on both sides of the House will agree that collaborative working is vital if the Bill is to succeed. The Bill makes it clear that local authorities must work with their relevant partner agencies, and clause 4(4) says that they
	may . . . provide staff, goods, services, accommodation . . . and maintain a pooled fund.
	That wording suggests that there is a choice. The Government may have overlooked that usage, but we need to be certain that that is the case.
	We know from debates on the health service that there is enormous pressure on finances in this area, and that one in four primary care trusts are in financial deficit. When we talk to Ministers about the provision of services in other areas we are told that that is the responsibility of local management. I have asked Health Ministers on a number of occasions about the provision of local health services in north Hampshire, but they tell me that that is dictated by local management. We need to take that into consideration when we assess this part of the Bill. Can the Minister explain where the well-being of children will fall in local NHS priorities? The amendments recognise the need for a statutory directive in the Bill to ensure that it can achieve what it sets out to achieve.
	Finally, after that rather long shopping list of amendments, amendment No. 47 would remove clause 5. Under that clause, the Minister could redefine the nature of early childhood services, thus giving her unlimited powers to change the group of people whom the Bill is intended to help. How would those services be redefined? Will she explain why that provision was included by telling us when and why it would be used? I commend the amendments to the House, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Annette Brooke: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) because, as many of us recall, the subject matter of amendment No. 1 generated a great deal of debate in Committee. I explained at the time that I had intended to support ituntil I heard the arguments for it. Despite the fine words that we have just heard, amendment No. 1 would rip the heart out of the Bill. It is essential that reduce inequalities be left in.
	I was interested in the Conservative amendment because it had been pointed out to me that inequalities could be reduced by pulling the more advantaged down. Despite clause 1(1)(a), I still have a concern that that could happen, so I tabled amendment No. 34, with which I tried to achieve the best of all worlds. I stole the Conservatives' words, left in inequalities and added paragraph (c) to make the same point.
	As a belt and braces measure I tabled another amendment, which was not selected but might be even better. If paragraph (a) read
	improve the well-being of every young child in their area.
	That sounds like quite an undertaking, but the phrase every young child is used elsewhere, so there is a precedent. I could not support amendment No. 1 which, by removing reduce inequalities, would undermine everything in the Bill.
	Several amendments refer to targets. We discussed that in Committee and we are all concerned about targets being centrally set and possibly having unintended consequences. There is an argument for requiring the monitoring of performance, rather than the setting of targets.
	Our amendment No. 11 relates to the duty to provide information, advice and assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) proposes that clause 12(1) should state:
	An English local authority must establish and maintain a service providing information, advice and assistance for families in accordance with this section.
	I have previously expressed great concern about the fact that in the entire Bill there is no mention of families. This, if anywhere, is where such a reference should be. We want advice for parents and support for children, but the relationships and dynamics within the family are greater than the sum of its parts, whatever form the family unit takes. If clause 12(1) included a reference to families, we would ensure that information about a raft of family support measures was available. That small amendment would greatly enhance the Bill.
	We have had a useful debate on this large group of amendments and tackled the underlying philosophy of the Bill. The wording of clause 1(1) and (3) could be improved to make doubly sure that we do not reduce inequalities by pulling the more advantaged down.

Edward Miliband: I shall make a brief contribution because Conservative Front Benchers have unwittingly revealed the problem with today's Conservative party. On the one hand, Conservative Members use rhetoric that makes it sound as though they are caring, sharing, modern and interested in a fairer society, but when it comes to reality, they oppose the concept. Since my earlier intervention, I have done further research and I have a copy of the interview with the new policy chief of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for West Dorset, in The Daily Telegraph on 23 December 2005. He said:
	Of course, inequality matters. Of course, it should be the aim to narrow the gap between rich and poor.
	I do not know whether the Conservative party's policy chief scrutinises Front-Bench amendments but, on the basis of the interview, I cannot believe that he would approve of an amendment that would remove the aim of reducing the gap between the rich and the poor.

Maria Miller: Of course we are talking about the gap between rich and poor and we take that seriously. Surely the hon. Gentleman should take seriously the Prime Minister's statement on the matter. In a Newsnight interview in 2001, he said:
	Surely the important thing is to level up those people who don't have opportunity in our society.
	Perhaps the problem that we are revealing today is the gap between the hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister.

Beverley Hughes: He may be very good, but he has not listened to the debate, and on that basis I will not give way to him. Had he listened more, I should have been happy to do so.
	Amendment No. 47 proposes to remove the ability to amend the definition of early childhood services. Had the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) either been in the Committee or read the report of this part of its proceedings, she would know that I granted what she is asking at that stage. I said that I envisaged the power being used only in the event of, say, structural changes in individual Departments such as the Department of Health or the Department for Work and Pensions that necessitated technical amendments, or if the experience of practitioners and local authorities made clear that young children would benefit from the inclusion of other services or other relevant partners. I have now put on record twice the circumstances in which we envisage the possibility of that power being used.
	Amendments Nos. 43 and 56 concern access to services. I believe that amendment No. 43 risks creating a perverse incentive. If authorities need to maximise access to early childhood services, there may be a danger of their encouraging groups of parents to take up services that they do not need. That would prevent resources from being devoted to the most disadvantaged, which is what the hon. Member for Basingstoke said she wanted. Changing identify to target, which is proposed in amendment No. 56, is unnecessary, because clause 3(3)(b) requires local authorities to encourage parents who have been identified to take up services. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that the amendment is not necessary.
	Amendment No. 55 would remove any local authority flexibility in the sharing of resources with relevant partners. I think that we should leave the position as it is. Local flexibility is important. Resources are already being pooled, and I think that the judgment on when that is beneficial should also be made at local level.
	Amendment No. 11 deals with information for families. I have some sympathy with it. Our intention is to focus resources on information for parents and carers, because they will be the most responsible and will have the most influence. I appreciate that in many cases other family members will act on behalf of parents. I shall make clear in guidance that, in the right circumstancesobviously not when it is against parents' wishesthey too will be able to have relevant information.
	As for amendment No. 48, we know that funding and sustainability are key issues for local authorities planning child care. In Committee, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) confirmed that he did not expect authorities to look into the future to determine whether a provider was likely to last. Regulations under clause 12 will require local authorities to provide detailed information about providers, including their registration status, how many places they have, and how many funded places they offer. Authorities will also be required to tell parents how to gain access to Ofsted inspection reports that may include information. It is not clear to me what further information authorities would be expected to give other than their own assessments of sustainability, which could be misleading. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
	There are issues that I have not mentioned, including the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) about Investors in Children. I can tell the hon. Lady that I am not convinced of the need for continuation of a kitemark scheme. However, I said to her in Committee that we are working closely with the National Children's Bureau to see what other arrangements we can put in place, supported by the sectorthat is appropriateto enable the funding that goes to local authorities to be used to ensure that there are local schemes. That will ensure that there is continuing development and improvement through those quality assurance schemes, which is the right way to go.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Basingstoke will think that I have replied sufficiently for her to withdraw her amendment. Certainly, there is still a considerable political divide on amendment No. 1 and I make no apologies for not accepting it.

Tim Loughton: I am a little worried, as the good burghers of the Isles of Scilly must be seething, about an obvious omission that should have been addressed at the outset. Goodness knows, the Government have had enough time to deal with this. The Under-Secretary skimmed over it in a single sentence, but I would be grateful if she gave us an insight into the structure of the education authority on the Isles of Scilly to that we can understand why the change is essential.

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 56, line 2, at end insert
	'Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)
	In section 65 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (meaning of family proceedings), in subsection (1) after paragraph (n) insert
	(nza) section 72 or section (Power of constable to assist in exercise of powers of entry) of the Childcare Act 2006;.
	Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54)
	In Schedule 1 to the Supreme Court Act 1981 (distribution of business in High Court) in paragraph 3 (which deals with business assigned to the Family Division) after paragraph (e) insert
	(ea) proceedings under section (Power of constable to assist in exercise of powers of entry) of the Childcare Act 2006;.[Beverley Hughes.]
	Title
	Amendment made: No. 29, line 6, after 'in England;' insert
	'to amend Part 10A of the Children Act 1989 in relation to Wales;'.[Beverley Hughes.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Our debates on the various stages of the Bill have been productive, constructive, at times humorous, and well intentioned. I pay tribute to the commitment that Members in all parts of the House have shown, and to the detailed knowledge that many of them have brought to our deliberations as a result of many years of interest in the subject, going far beyond our experience as parents.
	Apart from the one, albeit fundamental, dividing line between us on reducing inequalities, we have achieved a remarkable degree of consensus on the principles of the Bill and its aims. That is a measure of the extent to which the Government have shifted the ground. Such transformational change as we have seen over recent years, culminating in the Bill, in marked contrast to previous Government policies, commands consensus across the political parties.
	The Bill has benefited from the close scrutiny to which it has been subjected, and the changes that have been made have improved it. I thank the Deputy Speakers who have chaired our discussions today, and our Chairmen in Committee. I thank the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who led the debates from the Opposition Benches, and their hon. Friends. I also thank the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), and all my hon. Friends who have taken such an active part in the debate and helped us enormously, and I thank the Clerks and our officials, whom my hon. Friend has just mentioned, who have supported us ably throughout. I am grateful to everybody.
	Let me put the Bill in the context of Government objectives since 1997 of transforming the experience of children, young people and their families. We are doing that, first, because we are serious about increasing social mobility, reducing inequalities and tackling the long-standing disadvantages for many children and families that existed prior to 1997. Secondly, we need to respond to the labour market changes that have occurred over recent years, the aspirations of women as well as men, and the desire for both parents to have the flexibility of combining work and home life in ways that still provide high-quality options for their children.
	Thirdlywe have not discussed this issue, but it is none the less importantas a nation, we need to maximise the achievement of all our people in the face of increasing global competition, which includes rising economies such as China and India. We must ensure that every child reaches their potential and goes on from early years to educational success. Investment in early years is not only a social and moral imperative, but an essential measure for parents in their home and work lives and for our international economic competitiveness.
	The Government have worked to bring about that transformation since 1997. We started with a massive increase in child care places and moved on to the Children Act 2004, the Every Child Matters programme, the five outcomes, the 10-year child care strategy, the promise of a children's centre in every community and extended schools, and this landmark Bill extends that process. It is the first ever Bill dedicated to early years and child care, which demonstrates our commitment to early years and Every Child Matters. We are providing opportunities and choice, improving outcomes, reducing inequalities and increasing long-term investment.
	The Bill focuses on outcomes and ensures that parents have a real choice. The Bill empowers local authorities to be the strategic leaders, which is a role that they will fulfil in consultation with parents and providers. Parents will be given the information that they need, and there will be a new approach to inspection and regulation. The early years foundation stage will build on what works and good parenting, and the child care register will extend quality. Last but not least, the need to safeguard children underpins the entire Bill. That is everybody's business, and we will discuss it in greater detail when we consider the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, which has been mentioned today.
	The Bill is important and exciting. It starts to redraw the welfare state in terms of what families can expect to be provided for them in their areas on a local basis. The focus is on quality, improving outcomes for children in early years and reducing inequalities. The Bill is an integral part of our Every Child Matters programme, and it will ensure that every child has the opportunity to achieve their full potential.
	It is good to see the commitment of Opposition Members to the Bill, which I commend to the House.

Tim Loughton: I echo the Minister in saying that we had well-mannered, good-humoured and well-informed debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I thank the Committee Chairmen, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton). As has happened today, we conducted our deliberations in Committee without guillotines or knives, and the lesson is that we can have a rational debate without being constrained by artificial timings, which the Government Whips too often seek to impose.
	I thank my hon. Friends who have contributed. Our Whip in Committee was my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who was here earlier today. We witnessed bravura performances by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who mentioned The Very Hungry Caterpillar. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) is very well-informed, but, alas, she is abroad today and cannot join us. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) made a cameo appearance on the Front Bench this afternoon, when he was the target of so much vitriol from Labour Membershe has now scarpered, as have some of his attackers.
	Many additional amendments have been tabled. It assists debate if we can have as much notice and as detailed an up-front explanation of those as possible. If the Government intend to table further amendments, I hope that they give colleagues in the upper House a little more breathing space by supplying them as far in advance of the debate as possible.
	We welcome the additional measures to safeguard children. As the Minister knows, over the past few years we have fully concurred and co-operated with the Government in their various Bills to try to make the protection of our children, particularly vulnerable children, a genuine priority and to achieve some genuine change from the poor outcomes that they have experienced for far too long. It is absolutely right that this Bill, like the other legislation that is yet to come before us, should be proof against those who would abuse and undermine our children.
	There are other good things in the Bill. The Minister called it a landmark Bill and said that it is part of the redrawing of the lines of the welfare state. That suggests that the Government set rather more store by the great dogma of their programme than we do. As far as we are concerned, the Bill is about affording more people the chance to access quality child care to improve the start that their children get in life, whether they come from disadvantaged or advantaged backgrounds. That is why we have wanted to concentrate on those from a disadvantaged background getting those opportunities as well.
	It is interesting, amusing and reassuring that we can occasionally rattle the great class warriors who still exist on Labour Benches, albeit in a rather confused way that contradicts their own Prime Minister. They set great store by phrases about reducing inequalities instead of concentrating on improving outcomes for those who need and deserve our support most of all. I do not think that those two things are mutually exclusive. It is interesting that there have been so many attempts to put divisions between what Members say. All that we are trying to achieve is better outcomes for the most disadvantaged, but for many, the argument about reducing inequalities is more important.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) rightly said that one of the most important parts of the Bill concerns the word taughtjust six little letters and one little word. We had a great debate about that. The Minister was at pains to say that although there was little between us, that one little word was so fundamental that it had to stay in the Bill. That is a shame, and I hope that the Government will reflect on it. My noble colleagues in the upper House will certainly return to the subject as the Bill proceeds.
	It was encouraging that we almost had a rebellion from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who has also scarpered. She threatened to vote with the Opposition at one stage and abstained in one vote. Given her great expertise on early years child care and the whole subject of play for children, the Government would do well to listen to her comments.
	The Government accepted many of our arguments and sympathised with many of our intentions, but in the end they did not accept any of our amendments. That is disappointing.
	It is worth pointing out that the success of the Bill will rely enormously on the way in which local authorities embrace, interpret and enact its provisions, which of course bring no additional moneys with them.
	All our discussions in the House will amount to nothing unless local authorities are able to do their job of ensuring that there is sufficient child care and that it is provided in a balanced way, because many of the private and voluntary independent providers, who have provided so much child care in the past, are threatened by unfair competition. The child care places that are lost must be set aside the creation of new ones. We admit that the net figure has increased, but the sustainability of those places is important.
	The Bill is not just about the numbers or the shiny new buildings that may house those child care places, whether in nurseries or whatever, but about the quality of provision and ensuring that we are giving those children the very best start in life. That is absolutely fundamental. We can write all the terms into the Bill that the Government wish and we can exhort local authorities to ensure that the numbers tally with what the Government want, but the most important thing is the quality of the outcome that the Bill achieves for those children and its impact on them, particularly in those crucial early yearsyears 1, 2, 3 and 4.
	We welcome the Bill. We have supported it throughout, but we want it to work in practice. I hope that the Government have taken on board the serious concerns that we have expressed throughout our good debates. I hope that they will reflect on them and that, when the Bill reaches the upper House, they will allow some of the amendments that our noble colleagues table to see the light of day and be included in the legislation. Ultimately, we support the Bill. We wish it well, and we will certainly support its Third Reading this evening.

Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I have adjoining constituencies and it falls to me to express my party's thanks to the Conservative Front Benchers, my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller), for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and for East Worthing and Shoreham. I add my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who has paid close attention to everything that was said.
	Perhaps it is too late to suggest to Ministers that the title of the Bill should be changed to Early Years Well-Being. When considering the well-being of children up to the age of fiveor up to the age of eight if one takes account of part 3it is important to reduce the avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap that they may face and to improve their well-being, which is a mixture of wealth and welfare. The development stages, which part 1 covers, are vital.
	Although the measure is primarily about the duties of local authorities, everybody in local authorities will want to involve parents. Trying to develop the confidence and competence of parents is the key to developing the confidence and competence of children in the early stages and building on that through the primary school years, secondary school years and adult life.
	Earlier, I referred briefly to the Plowden report, which was published in 1967. The research papers are worth rereading and I commend them to people in local authorities as well as to those who advise Ministers. The Court report on child health services again showed that parents' actions matter. There is no point in relying on what local authorities or health services can provide if we do not engage parents in what they can do. The reports may be 30 to 40 years old but, if the work was redone now, the same conclusions would be reached. What was learned in Home-Start and what Sure Start is introducing are lessons that are not especially new. Every generation needs to relearn them.
	The bipartisan approach to the issues that local authority responsibilities cover matters. We have the problemor challengeof trying to ensure that that gets across to parents in all parts of the country in every generation. If 600,000 to 700,000 children are born each year and at least half are first children in a family, many new parents need to know what is available, what their child's experience will be and what the normal hiccups, obstacles and problems are. All those who dedicate themselves to children, whether in the voluntary sector or in other ways in their professional lives, matter a lot.
	My final word of caution is to enthusiastic Ministers in this third way, new Labour Government. Life did not start in 1997, and nor did the co-operation between health and education. It has been said in a slightly jokey way that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) was booked into a hotel room at a party conference with his wife, Lady Young, they were the Ministers for the under-fives in health and education, and that the two Departments have had better dealings with each other ever since.
	We need to monitor the outcomes that people have worked for. When my wife, who is now in another place, was Minister for Health, she was as concerned about these matters as Ministers are now. I suspect that Ministers will be coming to the House in five or 10 years' time to report on the measurable outcomes. The issue of whether reducing inequalitywhich is not how I would have put itor raising people up from levels at which they should not be allowed to stay is the more important will become clear.
	An example of inequalities for the elderly in our constituencies is that they have to wait nearly two years for a hearing aid, but if they go privately they can get one almost straight away, for a vast sum of money. We could reduce that inequality by saying that people should not buy hearing aids privately. Alternatively, we could reduce the level of unfairness by saying that everyone should get their hearing test and their hearing aid within 18 weeks. I commend that to the Ministers as well.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Ordered,
	That, in the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, c.) shall apply as if the words '18th March' in line 18 were replaced by the words '20th March'.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Blackpool to Fleetwood Tramway

Gordon Marsden: The Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway, which spans 10.4 miles from Starr Gate to Fleetwood and carries 6.5 million passengers a year, is genuinely unique. Opened in 1885, it remains the oldest continuously operating UK tramway. Along with the tower, the winter gardens and the Big One, it is the thing that defines Blackpool for millions of people in Britain. The tramway has also been a star of the silver screen, from the films of George Formby with his little stick of Blackpool rock to the shocking demise of Alan Bradley, who was crushed under the wheels of a tram in Coronation Street, and, most recently, the BBC hit drama series, Blackpool.
	The tramway also annually frames and garlands the greatest light-show in the UK, the illuminations, and the best way to see the illuminations is still by tram. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), as a north-west MP and a history enthusiast, will appreciate all this. He will also understand the pivotal role that the Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway has played, not only in our broader social history but in the identity, life and success of Blackpool as a seaside resort, not least because hundreds, if not thousands, of his own constituents will have travelled on Blackpool trams.
	However, just as Britain cannot live in the past, neither can Blackpool. At 120 years old, the tramway is showing its age. It is in urgent need of modernisation and renewal. It serves not only Blackpool but Cleveleys and Fleetwood, which is why Blackpool council and Lancashire county council have come together on a bid that is enthusiastically backed by all the Fylde coast MPs. I want to emphasise at the outset that the bid is not a heritage project, as some people have suggested.
	It is not something that could be hived off for lottery funding elsewhere, even if the necessary sums were available. Nor is it a tourism project. Some 60,000 people use the tramway every day in Blackpool as a vital element of work and daily travel in the town. It is vital in particular because a larger than average number of elderly people live in Blackpool, and Blackpool still has the lowest car density in the north-west. Having used the tramway to travel from my home and office base in South Shore up to North Shore, I know that it is still a very important practical linkand the journey is of course very evocative, whether one is seeing winter gales or summer sunshine over the Irish sea. Ultimately, the tramway meets a core transport need for the residents of Blackpool and the Fylde coast.
	The Blackpool scheme should not be regarded as a blue-sky scheme. It must not be seen as part of the network of assorted light rail proposals that have been submitted to the Department for Transport in recent years, however worthy they may be. For my constituents, this bid is an essential bread-and-butteror perhaps, as we are talking about Blackpool, I should say fish-and-chipscomponent of public transport.
	The revised project cost of 88 million, of which the Government would contribute 72 million, covers the delivery of fully accessible platforms at stops, new rolling stock which would include articulated trams and low-floor trailers for older trams, a major programme of track renewal, the complete renewal of the electrification from Thornton Gate to Fleetwood, and the revision, substantial extension and modernisation of the tram and bus depot.
	If any evidence is needed of the urgent need for this project, I can draw the Minister's attention to the following factsand they are facts. Less than a quarter of the existing track is in good condition. More than 55 per cent. of it requires attention now and in the near future. A full tramway service from Starr Gate to Fleetwood has not run in any winter since 2001, and the winter of 200405 saw Manchester square closed to tram travel south to Starr Gate. Indeed, on that occasion a 1 million emergency maintenance scheme funded by the Department for Transport was needed to retain access to the depot. The worst part of the track is between Central Pier and South Pier, but the electrical infrastructure north of Cleveleys is powered from a 60-year-old electrical substation, and there is an urgent need for track renewal if the whole system is to remain open beyond 200607.
	The tramway is key not just for Blackpool and Fylde in the present, but for Blackpool and Fylde in the future. An updated tramway is crucial to Blackpool's continued regeneration efforts, and to the success of the town's master plan. Not only would the proposed scheme provide a mass transport system for Fylde coast regeneration by linking Blackpool with Cleveleys and Fleetwood; it would provide the option in future years for further developments to the coast south of Fylde, with considerable potential for links to Blackpool, North and Blackpool airport.
	The tram will deliver the economic and social benefits of resort regeneration by providing a high-quality public transport link between the central area and the main tourism destinations, including some of the large hotels. Transport is a major element in the application to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a regional casino in Blackpool, and we know that potential developers regard the tram as a key asset in that context.
	There is considerableindeed, substantiallocal support for the bid. I have mentioned already the support from Members of Parliament. There has also been concerted co-operation and collaboration between Lancashire county council and Blackpool, and full integration with all the planning and local highways authorities. Popular local support for all aspects of regeneration and specifically for the renewal of the tram system has been sustained and widespread. After his recent attendance at the Labour party spring conference, the Minister will know of the intense enthusiasm for the project, not just from the local papers but from delegates and others.
	Perhaps most significantly, the bid has attracted unqualified and unhesitating support from the Northwest Development Agency and from the North West regional assembly. The tram bid was recommended as a priority in the top quartile for regional funding allocation. The Minister will know that, on 22 February, Steven Broomhead, the chief executive of the Northwest Development Agency, wrote to him in support of the project. He said:
	The Tramway scheme scored well in each area and was well placed in the top quartile of these schemes examined. It has been recommended by the Region as a priority for funding . . . because this scheme is partially a deferred maintenance scheme it carries less risk . . . I would be grateful if you could place on record the Agency's full support for the Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway project.
	That underlines just how strong and unanimous the support for the scheme is across the region.
	It is also important to comment briefly on the basis for the resubmitted scheme that Lancashire county council and Blackpool have put forward, because that indicates how they have responded positively to the demands that the Department placed on them after the initial submission of the scheme resulted in a request for revision. The revised scheme emphasises that it is a tramway, not a light rail system and that it updates an existing system, rather than building an entirely new tram network. The scheme scores well on deliverability and value for money. Blackpool already has a right of way and other assets that will provide cost savings. The scheme has been nearly five years in development and so the costs and the patronage figures that are quoted in the submission are far more robust and involve far less risk than might otherwise be the case. The relatively modest cost88 million at 2005 pricesworks out at a cost per kilometre of 4.9 million, which is a fraction of the cost of most other light rail projects. The tram routes in Blackpool are free of utilities equipment, so there will be no need for expensive relocation work. The project is phased across a range of financial periods. Government contributions are requested to be 8.1 million in 200607, 26 million in 200708 and 37 million in 200809.
	Importantly, the scheme will ensure that there are modern articulated trams that are compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The positive benefit-cost ratio that the Department has asked for is in line with its requirements. However, no direct account is taken in the submission of the positive synergy between a tramway upgrade and the development of key sites in the regeneration area. I would argue, therefore, that the economic benefits of the scheme as outlined have been substantially underestimated. In my view, that strengthens the case for it.
	The devil is always in the detail of such projects, as we know, but I would argue that Lancashire county council and Blackpool between them have produced sufficient detail to satisfy the most demanding transport anorak. Let me cite some of what has been achieved. The revised bid, which was submitted in July 2005, reduced the capital cost by a third. It reduced the Government's contribution to 72 million over three years from 200607. It also produced a benefit-cost ratio of 1.59:1, to which I have already referred. Blackpool has cut costs by reducing the number of stops from 61 to 40, reducing the number of points and crossings from 147 to 54 and reducing the number of vehicles from 19 new and 20 refurbished ones to 16 new and 12 refurbished ones. All that was done in line with Department for Transport guidance and advice, and the consideration went right down to the type of coaches that would be commissioned if the bid went ahead.
	The Minister must forgive me if he detects a slight note of frustration, as well as enthusiasm for the bid, in my voice, given the time over which the bid has been going on. We in Blackpool believe that we have done virtually everything that the Department has asked of us. The cost-benefit information shows that the bid is as robust and conservative as the driest economist might wish. However, even at this stage, if there are aspects of the bid that are not clear to departmental officials, the council and others in Blackpool stand ready to provide even more information.
	We have tried to respond to what officials have asked for and produced a proposal that meets the Government's tight priorities. Other light rail schemes have been criticised because of runaway costs and over-optimistic forecasts. Our tram appraisal, as now submitted, is tight, informed and on the button.
	I suggest to the Minister that the time for a decision is very close. I hope that with the examples that I have cited, I have underlined that I do not believe that the possible closure of elements of the track due to health and safety concerns is a question of exaggeration or bluff. I thus ask him to reflect on and respond to several specific questions.
	Will the Minister tell me why there has been confusion among officials about the new submission? There is evidence that they did not realise that it was a new bid, rather than a resubmission. Will he tell me why issues around supporting information on capital costs were not raised until recently by Department for Transport officials as part of the KPMG assessment?
	Does the Minister realise that because Blackpool's bid involves the upgrade of an existing system, the project would be much cheaper than a typical light rail scheme and be a low-risk project? The bid has much evidence on which to base costs and patronage figures. I understand that it will involve no costs or Transport Act requirements for moving utilities or existing cables. Is the Department fully aware of the endorsement of the tram project by both the Northwest Development Agency and the North West regional assembly, and that they have placed it in the top quarter of priority of all the projects that need funding in the north-west regional transport plan, which is now with the Minister and his officials?
	I know that in a tight fiscal climate, any Minister will always want to be satisfied about the detail. However, we in Blackpool ask that the bid is judged on fair and transparent criteria that apply to it, rather than to other bids for light rail schemes. We ask that the goalposts are not continually moved throughout the process.
	For us in Blackpool and on the Fylde coast, the tramwayand its survival and renewalis not tourism frippery or an end-of-the-pier show. The bid is a core funding proposal for something that is essential to the future functioning of public transport in Blackpool and on the Fylde coast, and that is the basis on which I ask the Minister to approve the scheme urgently. Although he will want to exercise throughout the process all the analytical powers that I know that he will bring to bear, I hope that he will not ignore the honourable place that history would afford himalong with George Formby and Coronation Streetas the man who gave new life to a treasured, iconic and very practical public transport system and made it fit for purpose in a 21st century, regenerated Blackpool, rather than dooming it to curio status and possible closure.

Derek Twigg: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden)on securing this debate. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) are great champions of Blackpool and the issues it is faced with. I welcome the opportunity to hear at first hand the views on the Blackpool and Fleetwood tramway and to set out the Government's position in respect of its future.
	I am aware that the Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway is the oldest continuously operating tramway in the UK. It has been operating since 1885, and it currently carries about 4 million passengers a year. The Government recognise that the tramway is an established part of the transport network on the Fylde coast. Blackpool council has spent 4.5 million over the past four years on essential maintenance to keep the tramway running. It says that a minimum of a further 16 million will be required over the next three years to maintain the existing tramway.
	We therefore recognise the situation regarding the tramway's future. To do nothing in the next few years would mean that it could no longer operate in the way that it has been doing for many years. We also need to consider the tramway in the wider local and regional context. Blackpool's provisional local transport plan was submitted in July 2005. It highlighted three significant changes since the previous local transport plan, which crucially affect the context within which Blackpool council will seek to deliver its transport strategy. They are the decision to bid for the tramway upgrade; a revision of the local land use planning framework; and the development of a master plan for Blackpool and subsequent formation of an urban regeneration company to take this vision forward.
	Blackpool council's master plan aims to transform the town, widening its appeal to fresh tourist markets both from the UK and abroad, and providing opportunities for the people of the town, especially those in the most vulnerable groups. The council recognised that the most significant challenge during its local transport plan period will be to deliver the development necessary to regenerate its resort economy, while still meeting sustainable transport objectives. Those objectives aim to minimise the impacts of traffic, encourage modal shift away from the car, minimise poor air quality and improve the accessibility of vital jobs and services, especially to the residents of deprived areas. The council considers that continuing access to a mass public transport system in the form of a modernised Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway is integral to the sort of regeneration anticipated by the master plan.
	In 2001, Blackpool and Lancashire councils submitted a bid for a major upgrade to the system. That was rejected by my Department on value for money grounds. The promoters submitted a new major scheme business case in July 2005. Their preferred option, as set out in the business case, is to renew the existing track, replace the electrification infrastructure on the most northern section of the line and replace the overhead conductor over the entire length of the line. They propose to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 by a combined fleet of new low-cost tram vehicles, accessible trailer cars coupled to refurbished heritage trams and raised platforms at stops to enable level boarding.
	The forecast outturn cost of that would be 96 million, of which the local councils would provide 24 million. The promoters are therefore seeking central Government funding of 72 million. In terms of value for money, which my hon. Friend referred to, the promoters say that their preferred option would have a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.57:1. Their assessment is that it will have a strong economical benefit and will have some additional benefits in terms of environment, safety, accessibility and integration objectives. My officials are reviewing the promoters' BCR and other claims. If the reported BCR turns out to be accurate, and it is established that all the non-monetised impacts will be positive, the scheme would be classified as offering medium value for money under the Department's guidance.
	We require promoters, when presenting a business case to the Department, to consider alternative options. In this case, the promoters have considered three other options for system upgrade, which I shall briefly set out.
	The next best alternative is similar to the preferred option, but with a reduced length of operation. It proposes the loss of a third of the northernmost section, with services turning around at the proposed loop at Thornton Gate. A lower cost alternative would further reduce the length of tramway, with the line terminating at Thornton Gate and Pleasure Beach. That would be coupled with minimal investment in infrastructure and vehicles. Special services would be provided by refurbished heritage units. Finally, a do minimum option has been considered, which proposes the retention of a tramway only between Pleasure Beach and North Pier, accepting the loss of its local transport function. My officials have worked closely with the promoters on their proposals and are carrying out an economic assessment of the business case to provide me with value for money advice on the scheme.
	My hon. Friend raised specific questions about the Department's handling of the Blackpool bid. He suggested there has been some confusion among my officials about whether the bid is new. I assure him that there has been no confusion. My officials met Blackpool council in July 2005, before the bid was submitted, to understand the context of the bid. We have treated the submission as a new bid.
	My hon. Friend asked whether the Department recognises that the bid has been substantially revised to meet the Department's earlier concerns about affordability and value for money, and that it meets the Department's requirements. We recognise that the costs have been reduced significantly compared with Blackpool's previous bid. As I said, we are considering the value for money assessment, and I cannot say at this stage what the results will be.
	My hon. Friend also asked whether I accept that the costs and risks of upgrading an existing system are lower than for a new system. I confirm that we recognise that certain risks are lower for an upgrade. For example, a new light rail system would require utility diversions and Transport and Works Act 1992 powers.
	My hon. Friend suggested that questions have been raised only recently on the capital costs. We raised issues about the information on capital costs at the end of 2005, following the Department's and our consultants' initial assessment of the bid submitted at the end of July. Also, we recently had to consider how the costs in the bid relate to the costs indicated in the advice that we received from the north-west region at the end of January on its priorities for use of the regional funding allocation. As I indicated, we are still completing our assessment of the bid, and at this stage I have not made any decisions in respect of the Blackpool and Fleetwood tramway. Therefore, the debate is very timely. I will take my hon. Friend's points into account, as well as other advice that I have received and the advice that my officials will give me in due course.
	Following the publication of regional funding allocations last year, the north-west regional bodies have provided me with advice on which schemes are prioritised within the region. My hon. Friend asked whether I am aware of the endorsement of the tram project by both the Northwest Development Agency and the North West regional assembly. The advice that I received from the regional bodies gives priority to the refurbishment of the tramway to help the economic regeneration of Blackpool. I have also had a representation from the North West regional assembly supporting the scheme.
	Any decisions on the projects prioritised by the regional bodies will be made in due course. We will take account of their views in our final decision on spend within the regional transport allocations. That will include their views on the timing of any funding provision as well as the amount.
	The debate has given me the opportunity to hear my hon. Friend's views on the future of the Blackpool and Fleetwood tramway. As he rightly said, I have also received other representations, not least on my recent visit to Blackpool. I understand that there is a great deal of interest in the tramway in Blackpool. Obviously, I am not in a position to make and give a decision at the moment, but I listened carefully to my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do that
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Five o'clock.

CORRECTION

Official Report, 8 March 2006, in column 905: Final paragraph, first sentence beginning Our concern is that, delete effects, insert offence.